University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


H 

SPEECH 

or 

MR.  CHARLES  HUDSON,  OF  MASS., 

u 

ON    THE 

SUBJECT  OF  THE  WAK,  WITH  MEXICO. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  MAY  14,  1846.     . 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill — 
Mr.  HUDSON,  of  Massachusetts,  having  obtained  the  floor,  said: 
Mr.  CHAIRMAN:  Under  ordinaiy  circumstances  I  should  not  have  ob 
truded  myself  upon  the  attention  of  the  committee.  But  we  are  now  at 
war  with  a  sister  Republic;  we  are  engaged  in  a  contest  commenced  by  the 
Executive  without  just  cause,  and  in  direct  violation  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  Constitution.  Believing  this  to  be  the  case,  I  feel  it  my  duly 
to  bear  testimony  against  this  procedure;  and  I  am  the  more  inclined  to  do 
this,  because  I  was  one  of  the  few,  or  as  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of 
the  House  have,  sneering,  said,  one  of  the  ignoble  fourteen,  who  had  the 
independence  to  follow^  their  own  sense  of  duty,  and  to  vote  according  to 
the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences.  I  bring  no  accusation  against  others. 
The  subject  was  presented  by  the  majority  of  the  House  in  the  most  em 
barrassing  form,  and  gentlemen,  of  honesty  of  purpose,  might  differ  upon 
the  final  vote.  As  I  claim  sincerity  for  myself,  I  do  not  question  the  sin 
cerity  of  my  friends,  whose  minds  were  brought  to  a  different  result. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  (Mr.  DOUGLASS)  in  reply  to  my  friend  from 
Ohio,  (Mr.  DELANO,)  has  told  the  committee  that  it  is  treason  to  the  country 
to  denounce  the  war  now  it  is  declared .  He  seems  to  admit  that  the  remarks 
of  the  member  from  Ohio  would  have  been  unobjectionable,  if  they  had 
been  made  before  the  war  bill  had  become  a  law.  But,  sir,  I  recognise  no 
such  distinction  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  We  know  the  man 
ner  in  which  that  bill  was  passed ,  the  hot  haste  with  which  it  was  pressed 
through  this  house,  and  I  intend  that  it  shall  be  known  eleswhere.  So 
far  as  my  feeble  powers  extend,  I  intend  the  country  shall  know  with  what 
rashness  and  indecent  haste  all  the  evils  of  war  have  been  brought  upon  the 
country.  A  message  was  received  from  the  President  of  the  United  States 
with  reference  to  our  relations  with  Mexico.  This  message  was  accompan 
ied  with  voluminous  correspondence  which  passed  between  our  Govern 
ment  and  Mexico,  and  also  between  the  Executive  and  Gen.  Taylor.  The 
House  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  the  subject. 
The  debate,  by  a  vote  of  the  dominant  party,  was  limited  to  the  short  space 
of  two  hours.  One  hour  and  a  half  of  that  time  was  consumed  in  reading 
the  correspondence,  and  even  then  one  half  of  the  papers  were  not  read. 


The  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  called  up  a  bill,  which 
had  been  for  some  time  upon  our  tables.,  which  simply  authorized  the  Pres 
ident  to  accept  the  services  of  volunteers,  should  they  be  necessary  to  defend 
our  own  soil ,  or  repel  invasion  from  our  territory .  This  bill  was  under  debate 
for  some  thirty  minutes,  but  no  Whig  was  able  to  obtain  the  floor.  Then, 
for  the  first  time,  a  declaration  of  war  was  mentioned,  and  sundry  amend 
ments  to  that  effect  were  offered.  When  the  time  for  discussion  expired, 
the  committee  passed  upon  the  amendments,  and  the  bill  was  immediately 
reported  to  the  House,  and  passed  under  the  previous  question.  Thus,  sir, 
was  war  declared  after  a  debate  of  some  thirty  minutes  only,  and  that  con 
fined  entirely  to  a  few  brief  remarks  by  four  members  of  the  Democratic 
party.  Not  an  individual  of  the  minority  was  permitted  to  say  a  word  upon, 
the  great  and  absorbing  question  of  peace  and  war.  The  House  knows, 
and  the  country  shall  know,  the  hasty  and  inconsiderate  manner  in  which 
they  have  been  involved  in  all  the  horrors  of  war.  A  grosser  instance  of 
precipitancy  and  rashness  cannot  be  found  in  the  history  of  any  assembly 
calling  itself  a  deliberative  body. 

Thus,  sir,  were  the  Whig  party  in  the  House  compelled,  by  a  tyrannic 
majority,  to  pass  upon  this  great  question  without  a  single  word  of  debate 
on  their  part,  and  without  having  one-half  of  the  documents  which  were 
submitted  by  the  President  read  !  And  now  we  are  told,  by  the  members 
of  the  same  dominant  party,  that  it  is  treasonable  to  speak  against  a  mea 
sure  thus  hastily  and  tyrannically  forced  through  the  House,  without  de 
bate,  amid  scenes  of  excitement  arid  confusion.  Opposition  to  this  mea 
sure,  we  are  told,  would  have  been  proper  before  it  had  passed;  but  now, 
being  at  war,  all  opposition  to  the  measure  shows  a  want  of  patriotism,  and 
a  disposition  to  take  sides  with  the  enemy.  Sir,  I  admit  no  such  principle; 
I  will  submit  to  no  such  iron  rule.  And  has  it  come  to  this,  that  all  debate 
is  to  be  suppressed  in  this  Hall — that  freedom  of  speech  is  to  be  denied  to 
the  representatives  of  a  free  people?  A  doctrine  more  despotic  was  never 
advanced.  According  to  this  doctrine,  if  the  President,  led  on  by  vain  am- 
"bition,  or  by  a  treasonable  desiie  to  raise  himself  to  a  throne  on  the  ruins  of 
our  free  Government,  has  the  wickedness  to  trample  upon  the  prerogatives 
of  Congress,  and  commence  an  unjust  war  with  a  foreign  power,  we  are  to 
submit  in  silence,  because  hostilities  have  already  commenced.  We  are  to 
stand  by  in  meek  submission,  and  see  our  right  invaded,  and  the  property 
and  lives  of  our  citizens  wantonly  sacrificed,  because  a  drilled  majority  of 
political  partisans  may  have  succeeded  in  pressing  through  Congress,  with 
out  debate,  an  endorsement  of  Executive  usurpation.  I  say,  sir,  I  will 
countenance  no  such  doctrine;  I  will  submit  to  no  such  dogma.  Under 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case  I  will  speak,  and  speak  as  freely  this 
day  as  I  would  have  spoken  on  Monday  last.  And  though  the  gentleman 
from  Illinois  very  modestly  brands  those  as  cowards  who  voted  against  the 
declaration  of  war,  I  will  assure  him  that  I  have  the  moral  courage  to 
speak  my  own  sentiments;  and  neither  his  dogmatical  declarations,  nor  the 
awful  nods  of  his  head,  shall  restrain  me.  I  will  speak  as  I  think,  regard 
less  of  the  frowns  or  sneers  of  that  gentleman  or  his  friends.  I  make  no 
pretensions  to  bravery;  but  it  frequently  requires  more  moral  courage  to 
stand  alone,  or  with  a  small  minority,  than  it  does  to  follow  the  multitude 
in  the  moment  of  popular  excitement. 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  one  of  the  fourteen  who  voted  against  the  passage 


of  the  war  bill.  I  voted  against  it  for  various  reasons;  and,  among  others, 
for  this:  I  believe  the  preamble,  and  its  repetition  in  the  first  section  of  the 
bill,  to  be  untrue.  The  preamble  is  as  follows:  "  Whereas,  by  the  act  of 
the  Republic  of  Mexico,  a  state  of  war  exists  between  that  government  and 
die  United  States." 

Now,  sir,  I  regard  this  preamble  as  utterly  false — false  as  a  whole,  and 
false  in  each  of  its  recitals.  It  is  not  true  that  war  existed  before  the  pas 
sage  of  that  act.  There  had  been  a  collision  between  our  troops  and  those 
of  Mexico;  but  a  collision  of  forces  in  a  single  instance,  and  at  a  particular 
point,  does  not  amount  to  war,  in  the  legal  and  constitutional  sense  of  that 
term.  By  the  Constitution  of  this  country  and  of  Mexico  the  power  to  de 
clare  war  is  vested  in  Congress,  and  not  in  the  President  or  the  command 
ing  general.  We  have  no  authority  for  saying  that  the  Mexican  Govern 
ment  had  declared  war,  and  we  know  that  our  Congress  had  given  no 
authority  to  the  President  to  march  his  troops  upon  a  disputed  territory  in 
possession  of  the  Mexicans.  There  is  also  a  manifest  distinction  between 
hostilities  and  war.  When  war  is  proclaimed  by  the  constituted  authority , 
the  whole  nation  and  the  world  are  bound  to  take  cognizance  of  it,  and  to 
govern  themselves  according  to  the  rules  of  constitutional  and  international 
law.  But  there  may  be  outbreaks  or  collisions  at  a  particular  point,  hostili 
ties  within  a  limited  sphere,  and  even  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  may  be 
granted  to  one  or  more  injured  subjects,  under  certain  circumstances,  and 
with  suitable  limitations,  without  being  in  a  state  of  war,  in  the  legal  sense 
of  that  term.  When  war  exists  neutral  nations  are  bound  to  take  notice  of 
it;  but  the  same  is  not  true  in  every  case  of  hostility.  We  have  several  ex 
amples  in  our  own  history  which  will  illustrate  this  distinction.  The  at 
tack  upon  the  Chesapeake  by  an  English  cruiser,  before  the  late  war  with 
England,  was  an  act  of  hostility,  but  neither  nation  regarded  it  as  war. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  destruction  of  the  Caroline  on  the  Canadian  fron 
tier.  The  capture  of  Monterey,  a  Mexican  town  upon  the  Pacific,  by 
Commodore  Jones,  in  1843,  is  another  case  in  point.  Each  of  these  cases 
shows  that  there  may  be  acts  of  hostility  between  the  forces  of  two  powers, 
raid  yet  the  relations  of  peace  may  be  preserved.  The  declaration,  there 
fore,  that  war  existed,  is  not  sustained  by  facts.  We  had  no  evidence  of  its 
existence  at  that  time;  on  the  contrary,  all  the  evidence  we  had  before  us 
went  to  sustain  the  opposite  conclusion.  I  .could  not,  therefore,  subscribe 
to  the  declaration  that  war  already  existed.* 

The  preamble  states  not  only  that  war  exists,  but  that  it  exists  by  the  act 
of  the  Republic  of  Mexico.  This  declaration  I  believe  to  be  untrue.  Mexi 
co  with  all  her  faults  has  not.  in  this  case,  been  the  aggressor.  The  state 
ment  which  ascribed  the  war  to  the  acts  of  Mexico  is  clearly  and  conclu 
sively  contradicted  by  the  facts  in  the  case.  I  might  go  back  to  the  com 
mencement  of  the  Revolution  in  Texas,  and  show  that  the  Government  of 

"*  Since  the  delivery  of  the  Speech,  we  have  received  the  Manifesto  of  Paredes,  dated  "  Na 
tional  Palace  of  Mexico,  April  23,  1846,"  only  one  day  before  the  collision  on  the  Rio  Grande, 
in  which  he  says  most  emphatically,  "  I  solemnly  announce  thai  I  DO  NOT  declare  war  against  the 
United  States  of  America,  because  it  pertains  to  the  august  Congress  of  the  nation,  and  not  to  the  Ex 
ecutive,  to  settle  definitely  the  reparation  which  so  many  aggressions  demand.  But  the  defence 
of  Mexican  territory,  which  the  United  States  troops  invade,  is  an  urgent  necessity,  and  my 
-responsibility  would  be  immense  before  the  nation,  did  I  not  give  commands  to  repel  those 
forces,  which  act  like  enemies.  I  have  so  commanded." 


the  United  States  have  not  maintained  a  policy  strictly  neutral,  as  they  were 
bound  to  do.  But  in  the  act  of  annexation,  we  not  only  violated  our  own 
organic  law,  but  violated  our  faith  pledged  to  Mexico  by  solemn  treaty. 
But,  sir,  I  will  not  rely  upon  that  act,  unjust  as  I  believe  that  to  have  been. 
I  will  take  the  case  as  it  stood  after  the  joint  resolution  was  passed;  and  I 
believe  that  our  conduct  towards  Mexico  is  entirely  indefensible.  Texas 
was  annexed  to  the  United  States,  and  on  the  supposition  that  that  act  was 
valid,  what  did  it  include?  What  did  we  annex?  The  old  province  of  Texas 
was  bounded  on  the  southwest  by  theNueces,  which  does  not  approach  within, 
one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  of  the  position  occupied  by  Gen.  Taylor.  The 
Texas  which  has  been  annexed  to  the  United  States  was  the  old  province 
of  Texas;  the  Texas  which  formed  one  of  the  States  or  departments  of  Mex 
ico;  the  Texas  which  rebelled  against  the  parent  government,  and  set  up  a 
government  for  herself;  in  a  word,  the  Texas  which  was  bounded  by  the  riv 
er  Nueces.  It  is  true  that  the  Texan  Congress  in  1836  passed  an  act  de 
claring  that  their  republic  was  bounded  westerly  by  the  Rio  Grande.  But 
what  title  had  she  to  the  territory  lying  westof  heroriginal  limits?  She  could 
have  none  but  that  of  conquest.  And  did  she  ever  carry  her  conquest  up  to  the 
Rio  Grande?  Nothing  like  it;  every  attempt  she  made  proved  a  signal  fail 
ure.  The  population  upon  the  Rio  Grande  never  rebelled  against  Mexico  7 
were  never  conquered  by  Texas,  or  submitted  to  Texan  law  or  authority. 
Texas  made  several  attempts  to  plant  her  standard  upon  the  banks  of  that 
river,  but  in  every  attempt  her  forces  were  either  captured  or  driven  back. 
With  what  propriety,  then,  can  we  maintain  that  the  wilderness  or  desert 
country  between  the  Nueces  and  Rio  Grande  ever  belonged  to  Texas?  A 
large  strip  of  country  on  the  left  or  eastern  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande  has  ever 
been  in  possession  of  Mexico,  and  we  have  acknowledged  that  possession 
both  before  and  after  annexation.  At  the  last  session  of  Congress,  an  act 
was  passed  allowing  a  drawback  upon  foreign  merchandise  imported  into 
this  country,  and  exported  to  Canada  and  Mexico;  and  among  the  places 
mentioned  in  Mexico  was  Santa  Fe.  And  during  this  session  Mr.  Secre 
tary  Walker,  in  his  report  on  the  finances,  says:  "The  act  of  March  3d ,  1845, 
allowing  a  drawback  on  foreign  imports,  exported  from  certain  of  our  ports 
to  Canada,  arid  also  to  Santa  Fe  and  Chihuahua,  in  Mexico,  has  gone  to 
some  extent  into  effect,  and  is  beginning  to  produce  the  most  happy  results.'1 

Here,  sir,  we  have  the  most  positive  recognition  on  the  part  of  our  Govern 
ment  that  Santa  Fe  belongs  to  Mexico,  and  is  included  within  her  lawful 
territory.  But  every  one  knows  that  Sante  Fe  is  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Rio  Grande.  How  then  can  it  be  pretended,  for  a  single  moment,  that  the 
whole  country,  or  that  any  part  of  the  country  bordering  upon  that  river,  be 
longs  to  Texas,  and  hence  is  a  part  of  the  United  States?  There  is  no  au 
thority  at  all  for  that  plea;  not  one  particle  of  proof  that  the  Rio  Grande  is 
our  true  boundary ;  except  the  act  of  the  Texan  Congress,  and  that  we  have 
confessed  to  be  invalid  by  admitting  Santa  Fe,  a  town  on  the  east  side  of 
that  river,  to  be  a  part  of  the  Mexican  territory.  At  that  place  we  have  a 
consul;  there  we  have  been  paying  duties  on  merchandise;  and  when  the 
expedition  to  Santa  Fe  was  captured,  our  Government  interceded  with  the 
Mexican  Government  for  the  release  of  our  citizens;  admitting  in  the  cor 
respondence  itself  that  Santa  Fe  rightfully  belonged  to  the  Mexican  Repub 
lic. 

Though  our  Government  had  by  public  acts  acknowledged  the  country* 


bordering  upon  the  Rio  Grande  on  the  east,  to  be  a  part  of  the  Republic 
of  Mexico,  the  treaty  got  up  by  President  Tyler  and  his  Secretary  of  State, 
attempted  clandestinely  to  obtain  all  the  territory  east  of  that  river.  The 
language  of  the  treaty  was  general.  It  provided  that  the  Republic  of  Tex 
as,  with  all  its  territory, 'should  be  ceded  lo  the  United  States.  But, sir,  though 
this  language  was  general,  and  seemed  to  imply  that  the  country  ceded  was 
nothing  more  than  Texas  proper,  the  country  bounded  westerly  by  the  Nue- 
ces;  yet  when  the  President  was  pressed  by  the  Senate  to  furnish  a  map  and 
description  of  the  country  to  be  annexed,  he  laid  before  them  a  map  of  the 
country  to  the  Rio  Grande,  with  the  clause  of  the  act  of  the  Texan  Congress, 
claiming  all  the  country  east  of  that  river.  But  Mr.  Calhoun,the  Secretary  of 
State,  though  he  had  affixed  his  name  to  that  stealthy  treaty,  and  was  the 
master-spirit  in  the  whole  transaction,  feeling  conscious,  as  it  would  seem, 
that  the  act  of  the  Texan  Congress  had  no  validity,  in  his  note  to  Mr. 
Greene,  our  charge  at  Mexico,  enjoined  it  upon  him  to  assure  the  Mexican. 
Government  that  the  boundaries  were  not  fixed,  and  that  this  Government 
would  exercise  a  liberal  policy  in  relation  to  that  subject.  His  words  are 
these  :  "  You  are  enjoined,  also,  by  the  President  to  assure  the  Mexican 
Government  that  it  is  his  desire  to  settle  all  questions  between  the  two 
countries  which  may  grow  out  of  the  treaty,  or  any  other  cause,  on  the 
•most  liberal  and  satisfactory  terms ,  including  that  of  boundary;  and  with 
that  view  the  minister  who  lias  been  recently  appointed  will  be  shortly  sent 
with  adequate  powers."  In  the  same  note  he  directs  Mr.  Green  to  assure 
the.Mexican  Government  '•'  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  has 
taken  every  precaution  to  make  the  terms  of  the  treaty  as  little  objectiona- 
able  to  Mexico  as  possible;  and,  among  others,  has  left  the  boundary  of 
Texas  without  specification,  so  that  the  boundary  might  be  an  open, 
question,  to  be  fairly  and  fully  discussed,  and  settled  according  to  the 
lights  of  each,  and  the  mutual  interest  and  security  of  the  two  countries." 

Now,  sir,  does  not  this  amount  to  a  full  confession,  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Calhoun,  that  the  Rio  Grande  was  not  the  boundary  of  Texas?  If  he  re 
lied  upon  the  act  of  the  Texan  Congress,  why  permit  the  line  to  be  drawn 
in  question,  and  propose  to  submit  it  to  negotiation?  The  fact  is,  that 
act  of  the  Texan  Congress  is  a  perfect  nullity.  No  man  knows  better 
than  Mr.  Calhoun  that  a  boundary  is  a  question  to  be  settled  by  two  na 
tions,  and  any  declaration  by  one  is  entirely  void.  Settling  territorial 
limits  is  to  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  contract,  and  as  necessarily  implies 
two  parties  as  any  other  contract  whatever.  Hence  it  is  the  vei y  perfection 
of  absurdity  to  rely  upon  the  declaration  of  Texas  as  deciding  this  ques 
tion.  It  is,  therefore,  a  matter  of  profound  astonishment  that  the  Presi 
dent,  in  his  late  message,  should  so  presume  upon  the  ignorance  of  Con 
gress,  as  to  present  that  ex  parte  act  of  Texas  as  having  any  bearing  upon 
this  question.  But  the  tieaty  was  rejected  by  the  Senate.  And  no  objec 
tion  was  urged  with  more  force  than  the  one  we  are  considering,  that  it 
attempted  to  carry  the  western  boundary  of  Texas  to  the  Rio  Grande,  far 
beyond  the  true  limits  of  Texas. 

The  distinguished  Senator  from  Missouri,  Mr.  BEXTONT,  when  speaking 
against  the  treaty,  said:  '-The  one  half  of  the  department  of  New  Mexico, 
with  its  capital,  becomes  the  property  of  the  United  States;  an  angle  of 
Chihuahua  also  becomes  ours;  a  part  of  the  department  of  Coahuila.  not 
populated  on  the  left  bank,  which  we  take,  but  commanded  from  the  right 


by  Mexican  authorities;  the  same  of  Tamaulipas,  which  covers  both  sides 
of  the  river  from  its  mouth  for  some  hundred  miles  up,  and  all  the  left  bank 
of  which  is  in  the  power  and  possession  of  Mexico.  These,  in  addition  to 
old  Texas;  these  parts  of  four  States;  these  towns  and  villages;  these  peo 
ple  and  territory;  these  flocks  and  herds;  this  slice  of  the  Republic  of  Mex 
ico,  two  thousand  miles  long  and  some  hundred  broad,  all  this  our  Presi 
dent  has  cut  off  from  its  mother  empire,  and  presents  to  us,  and  declares  it 
ours,  till  the  Senate  rejects  it!" 

"The  treaty,  in  all  that  relates  to  the  boundary  of  the  Rio  Grande,  is  an 
act  of  unparalleled  outrage  on  Mexico.  It  is  the  seizure  of  two  thousand 
miles  of  her  territory  without  a  word  of  explanation  with  her,  and  by  virtue 
of  a  treaty  with  Texas,  to  which  she  is  no  party." 

"Having  shown  the  effects  of  the  treaty  on  the  Rio  Grande  frontier,  I 
take  up  the  treaty  itself,  and  under  all  its  aspects,  and  in  its  whole  extent, 
and  assume  four  positions  in  relation  to  it,  viz. 

1.  That  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  would  be,  of  itself,  a  war  between  the 

United  States  and  Mexico. 

2.  That  it  would  be  an  unjust  war. 

3.  That  it  would  be  a  war  unconstitutionally  made. 

4.  That  it  would  be  a  war  upon  a  weak  and  groundless  pretext ." 

The  treaty  failing,  the  subject  at  the  next  session  was  brought  forward  in 
a  form  to  obviate  in  some  degree  this  objection  of  the  Senator  of  Missouri. 
The  joint  resolution  of  annexation  provides  that  "the  tem(ory  properly  in 
cluded  within,  and  rightfully  belonging  to,  the  Republic  of  Texas,  may  be 
erected  into  a  State,  &c."  But  the  first  condition  imposed  upon  Texas'in 
the  resolution  was  tin's:  "Said  State  to  be  formed ,  subject  to  the  adjust 
ment  by  this  Government  of  all  questions  of  boundary  that  may  arise  with 
other  Governments.'1'' 

Here,  sir,  we  have  a  full  recognition  of  the  unsettled  state  of  the  western 
boundary  of  Texas.  The  language  is  selected  with  caution— "the  territo 
ry  properly  included  within,  and  rightfully  belonging  to  Texas,'1''  and  this 
is  followed  with  a  provision  that  all  questions  of  boundary  which  may  arise 
with  other  governments,  shall  be  settled  by  the  United  States  and  that  other 
government.  These  provisions  can  have  no  significancy  on  the  supposition, 
that  the  boundary  mentioned  by  the  Texan  Congress  is  valid.  Not  only 
the  resolutions  of  annexation  implied  that  the  boundary  of  Texas  did  not 
extend  to  the  Rio  Grande,  but  Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll ,  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  who  brought  the  subject  before  the  Houser 
and  opened  the  debate,  gave  As  the  fullest  assurance  that  it  did  not  ap 
proach  within  a  hundred  miles  of  that  river.  His  declaration  is  this  : 
"The  territorial  limits  (of  Texas)  are  marked  in  the  configuration  of  this 
continent  by  an  Almighty  hand.  The  stupendous  deserts  between  the  rivers 
Nueces  and  Bravo  (Rio  Grande)  are  the  natural  boundaries  between  the 
Anglo-Saxon  and  the  Mauritanian  races.  There  ends  the  valley  of  the 
West.  There  Mexico  begins.  While  peace  is  cherished,  that  boundary 
will  be  sacred.  Not  till  the  spirit  of  conquest  rages  will  the  people  on 
either  side  molest  or  mix  with  each  other."  He  virtually  admits  that  we 
shall  have  no  right  even  up  to  the  desert  by  virtue  of  annexing  Texas,  for 
he  speaks  of  buying  our  peace  with  Mexico,  and  obtaining  the  country  up 
to  the  great  desert  by  the  offer  of  money.  "  Although  the  public  corres 
pondence  between  the  two  North  American  republics,"  says  he,  "has  be- 

• 


come  angry ,  I  am  happy  to  be  authorized  to  assure  the  House,  that  those 
best  acquainted  with  the  true  state  of  things,  apprehend  little  or  no  danger 
of  war — the  main  sinew  of  war,  money ,  will  heal  the  breach  and  the  contro 
versy  amicably."  Here  is  a  frank  confession  that  the  contemplated  boun 
dary  was  (he  great  desert,  and  even  that  could  be  obtained  only  by  the  pay 
ment  of  money.  And  what  has  been  the  policy  of  our  Government  since 
the  adoption  of  that  joint  resolution  ?  Why,  the  President  informed  us  in 
his  annual  message,  that  he  had  appointed  a  distinguished  citizen  of  Lou 
isiana,  and  sent  him  to  Mexico  "to  adjust  and  definitively  settle  all  pending 
differences  between  the  two  countries,  including  those  of  boundary  be 
tween  Mexico  and  the  State  of  Texas."  And  in  his  recent  message,  he 
says,  that  Mr.  Slidell  "was  intrusted  with  full  powers  to  adjust  both  the 
questions  of  the  Texas  boundary  and  of  indemnification  of  our  citizens." 

Now,  in  view  of  all  these  numerous  confessions,  on  the  part  of  our  own 
Government,  is  it  not  perfectly  preposterous  in  the  Executive  to  main 
tain  that  our  title  is  "clear  and  unquestionable"  up  to  the  Rio  Grande? 
Have  we  any  better  claim  to  the  country  up  to  the  bank  of  that  river  oppo 
site  Matamoras,  than  we  have  in  the  neighborhood  of  Santa  Fe  ?  The  Pre 
sident  in  his  late  message  relies  upon  the  act  of  the  Texan  Congress,  which 
made  the  Rio  Grande,  through  its  whole  course,  the  boundary,  when  he 
himself,  through  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  has  told  us  that  Santa  Fe, 
on  the  east  of  that  river,  is  included  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico. 

But,  sir,  while  I  am  upon  this  subject,  I  wish  to  pay  my  respects  to  the 
gentleman  from  Illinois,  (Mr.  DOUGLASS,)  who  favored  us  with  his  views 
upon  this  subject  yesterday.  The  gentleman  gave  us  as  rare  a  specimen  of 
advancing  and  retreating,  of  playing  off  and  on,  as  we  often  witness.  In 
the  first  place,  he  attempted  to  substantiate  our  title  to  the  whole  country 
east  of  the  Rio  Grande  by  referring  to  the  early  boundaries  of  Texas.  Buf; 
after  he  had  demonstrated  that  to  his  own  satisfaction,  he  confessed  that 
these  old  boundaries,  and  consequently  his  argument  founded  upon  them, 
was  nothing  to  his  purpose.  The  question,  he  said,  was  not  how  the  Pro 
vince  of  Texas  was  bounded,  but  how  the  Republic  of  Texas  was  bounded. 
In  this  way  he  yielded  all  arguments  drawn  from  the  boundaries  prior  to 
1836;  and  then,  to  show  that  he  had  no  settled  principle  upon  the  subject, 
he  returned  to  the  question  of  the  early  boundary,  and  referred  to  the  argu 
ment  of  my  venerable  colleague,  (Mr.  ADAMS,)  when  he  was  Secretary  of 
State.  This  vacillating  course,  this  employing  and  rejecting  almost  every 
argument  in  succession,  has  left  but  little  which  requires  any  reply.  There 
are,  however,  a  few  points  which  demand  a  passing  notice.  The  gentle 
man  told  us  that  there  were  some  soldiers  in  the  revolutionary  army  of  Texas 
who  came  from  the  country  west  of  the  Nueces,  and  from  this  he  argued 
that  all  that  country  fell  within  the  Republic  of  Texas.  But  does  not  every 
one  see  the  utter  fallacy  of  this  reasoning  ?  I  presume  there  might  have 
been  some  soldiers  in  the  Texan  army  from  the  country  west  of  the  Nueces, 
but  to  every  one  west  of  that  river  there  were,  I  presume,  ten  from  the 
country  east  of  the  Sabine.  And  if  this  fact  proves  that  the  country  between 
the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande  is  included  in  Texas,  the  same  argument 
would  prove  that  a  large  section  of  the  United  States  was  rightfully  includ 
ed  in  that  republic.  But,  sir,  the  question  is  not  from  what  country  or  sec 
tion  of  country  the  soldiers  came,  but  over  what  country  did  they  extend 
their  arms.  And  I  say,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  they  never  were 


8 

able  to  extend  their  conquests  to  the  Rio  Grande.  They  have  at  different 
periods  made  attempts  at  conquering  the  country,  but  have  always  been  re 
pulsed  or  captured . 

The  gentleman  has  said  that  one  member  of  the  Texan  Congress  had 
resided  west  of  the  Nueces,  and  hence  he  inferred  that  all  that  country  to 
the  Rio  Grande  belonged  to  Texas.  But  admitting  the  fact  to  be  as  he  has 
stated,  the  conclusion  does  not  follow.  The  distance  fro  n  the  Nueces  to 
the  Rio  Grande  is  some  hundred  and  sixty  miles,  and  even  if  it  should  be 
admitted  that  a  few  men  residing  in  the  immediate  valley  of  the  Nueces, 
should  call  themselves  Texans,  and  consent  to  be  governed  by  Texan  laws, 
this  does  not  justify  the  inference  that  the  Texans  possess  the  whole  country 
up  to  the  Rio  Grande.  It  is  also  true  that  men  residing  east  of  the  Rio 
Grande  are  represented  in  the  Mexican  Congress,  and  that  fact  is  as  good  for 
them  as  the  other  is  for  us. 

Again,  the  gentleman  has  told  us  that  this  whole  country  is  included  in 
one  of  the  congressional  districts  in  Texas.  The  State  is,  I  believe,  divid 
ed  into  two  districts;  but  it  is  manifest  that  whatever  may  be  the  lan 
guage  of  their  law,  it  can  include  no  territory  but  what  is  rightfully  theirs. 
Again,  the  gentleman  says,  that  this  country  is  included  within  one  of  our 
collection  districts,  and  is  subject  to  our  revenue  laws.  This  statement,  bor 
rowed  from  the  message  of  the  President,  requires  great  qualification.  It  is 
true  that  a  collection  district  has  been  established  at  Corpus  Christ! ,  which 
happens  to  be  on  the  west  side  of  the  Nueces  at  its  mouth.  But  that  our 
revenue  system  is  extended  west  to  the  Rio  Grande,  is  not  true.  And  though 
the  message  seems  designed  to  give  that  impression,  the  documents  submit 
ted  with  the  message  expressly  contradict  it.  Gen.  Taylor,  in  his  despatch 
dated  Corpus  Christi,  Feb.  26,  1846,  informs  the  President  that  he  had 
taken  every  opportunity  of  giving  the  impression  to  the  Mexicans  "that  the 
Mexicans,  living  on  this  side  (of  the  Rio  Grande)  will  not  be  disturbed  in 
any  way  by  our  troops;  that  they  will  be  protected  in  all  their  rights  and 
usages;  and  that  every  thing  which  the  army  may  need  will  be  purchased 
from  them  at  fair  prices.  1  also  stated  that,  until  the  matter  should  be  final 
ly  adjusted  between  the  two  Governments,  the  harbor  of  Brazos  Santiago 
would  be  open  to  the  free  use  of  the  Mexicans  as  heretofore.  The  same 
views  were  impressed  upon  the  Mexican  custom-house  officer  at  Brazos 
Santiago  by  Captain  Hardee,  who  commanded  the  escort  which  covered 
the  reconnoissance  of  Pradre  island." 

Here,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  the  authority  of  General  Taylor  for  the 
fact  that  the  Mexicans  were  in  possession  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande, 
that  Mexicans  were  living  there,  that  they  had  the  navigation  of  the  harbor 
of  Brazos  Santiago,  and  had  a  custom-house  and  custom-house  officers 
there.  How,  then,  could  the  message  declare  with  propriety,  or  even  truth, 
that  our  revenue  laws  were  extended  over  the  whole  country  between  the 
Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande?  Gen.  Taylor  further  informs  us,  that  in  ap 
proaching  Point  Isabel  he  found  it  in  flames,  and  that  on  arriving  there,  he 
learned  that  the  "port  captain,  who  committed  the  act,"  had  made  his  es 
cape,  and  that  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three  inoffensive  Mexicans,  the 
rest  had  left  the  place  for  Matarnoras.  This  evidence  is  clear  and  conclu 
sive  that  the  Mexicans  were  in  possession  of  the  country  on  the  east  bank  of 
the  Rio  Grande.  In  fine,  the  Executive  has  long  been  in  possession  of  this 
fact .  The  Secretary  of  War;  Mr .  Marcy ;  in  his  order  to  Gen .  Taylor,  dated 


July  8,  1845,  says:  "This  Department  is  informed  that  Mexico  has  some 
military  establishments  on  the  east  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  which  are,  and 
for  some  time  have  been,  in  the  actual  occupancy  of  her  troops." 

We  have  then  the  most  conclusive  evidence  that  Mexico  was  in  possession 
on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  having  citizens  living  there,  custom 
houses  and  military  posts  there.  What,  then,  becomes  of  the  declaration 
of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,  or  the  declaration  in  the  message  from  which 
he  borrowed  it,  that  we  were  in  possession,  and  that  our  laws  were  extended 
over  the  whole  country  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande  ?  But  the 
gentleman  from  Illinois  has  another  argument,  on  which  he  places  great  re 
liance;  that  at  a  certain  time  an  armistice  was  concluded  between  the  Mex 
icans  and  Texans,  and  one  provision  was  that  the  Mexican  forces  should 
be  withdrawn  to  the  right  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande.  Now,  I  would  gladly 
ask  that  gentleman,  whether  he  has  any  confidence  in  an  argument  of  this 
sort  ?  Does  not  every  one  know  that  nothing  is  more  common  in  such  cases 
than  to  agree  that  the  armies  on  both  sides  shall  be  withdrawn  from  the 
scene  of  action  ?  But  who  ever  thought  before,  that  such  an  agreement  for 
the  time  being  would  settle  the  future  boundary  of  the  two  countries?  The 
Mexican  might  with  more  propriety  rely  upon  the  fact  that  General  Taylor 
took  his  first  position  upon  the  Nueces,  to  prove  that  that  river,  and  not  the 
Rio  Grande,  was  the  true  boundary. 

There  is,  in  my  apprehension,  one  capital  defect  in  all  the  argument  ad 
duced  to  carry  the  Texan  boundary  west  to  the  Rio  Grande.  There  may 
be,  and  probably  are,  a  few  persons  living  immediately  upon  the  west  bank 
of  the  Nueces,  who  have  acted  with  the  Texans.  They  have  been  cut  off 
from  the  Valley  of  the  Rio  Grande  by  the  wilderness  and  deserts  which  lie 
between  those  two  rivers,  and  may  have  regarded  themselves  as  belonging 
to  Texas.  But  this,  if  it  be  admitted  to  the  fullest  extent,  does  not  prove 
that  Texas  has  ever  extended  her  laws  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  far 
ther  to  the  Rio  Grande,  and  over  people  of  another  race,  speaking  another 
language,  and  owing  allegiance  to  another  government.  Texas  has  no  title 
to  herself  except  what  she  obtained  by  revolution,  that  is,  by  conquest  and 
possession.  Did  she  carry  her  arms  west  to  the  Rio  Grande?  She  has 
made  several  attempts,  and  has  always  been  defeated — in  each  case  her 
forces  have  been  driven  back  or  captured.  Does  she  hold  the  country  west 
of  the  Nueces,  except  perhaps  a  very  small  portion  in  the  immediate  vicin 
ity  of  the  river?  There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  she  does.  Mex 
ico  being  the  original  owner, on  every  principle  of  law,  would  still  continue 
to  own  all  except  what  actually  revolted  or  was  conquered  by  Texas. — 
And  as  Texas  never  conquered  the  country  up  to  the  Rio  Grande,  and  as  it 
is  now,  or  was  on  the  approach  of  General  Taylor's  army,  inhabited  by  the 
subjects  of  Mexico  who  owed  allegiance  to  that  government,  and  who 
were  so  faithful  to  their  own  country  as  to  burn  their  dwellings  on  the  ap 
proach  of  the  American  army,  and  cross  the  river  to  their  own  countrymen, 
I  contend  that  there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  the  whole  country  east 
of  the  Rio  Grande  belonged  to  Texas,  or  belongs  to  the  United  States. 

The  President  himself  has  furnished  evidence  that  the  Mexicans  were  in 
possession  in  the  valley  of  the  Rio  Grande ;  and  the  most  that  can  possibly 
be  said  is,  that  the  territory  is  in  dispute.  In  all  such  cases,  possession  is 
a  good  title  as  against  an  imperfect  one.  We  had,  therefore,  by  no  princi 
ple  of  law  a  right  to  dispossess  her  by  arras ;  pending  the  controversy;  and 


10 

especially  as  she  was  willing  to  receive  a  special  minister  to  treat  expressly 
upon  this  subject  of  boundary.  The  advance  of  our  army,  therefore,  was 
an  act  of  aggression.  We  have  encroached  upon  territory  where  she  had 
the  possession,  and  claimed  to  have  a  perfect  title.  Let  a  case  like  this  be 
submitted  to  any  court  of  justice,  and  the  verdict  would  be  rendered  against 

us. 

I  will  even  go  farther.  If  our  title  were  the  best,  or  we  were  m  posses 
sion  up  to  the  banks  of  the  Rio  Grande,  even  then  we  should  be  the  ag 
gressors,  according  to  General  Taylor's  own  account.  In  his  despatch  of 
the  15th  of  April,  he  says  that  he  blocked  up  the  Rio  Grande,  and  stopped 
all  supplies  for  Matamoras.  This  was  the  first  act  of  aggression.  For  at 
that  time  it  is  not  pretended  that  the  Mexicans  had  made  any  attack  upon 
our  troops.  Col.  Cross  had  been  missing  for  a  few  days,  but  the  worst  ap 
prehension  was  that  he  might  have  been  murdered  by  some  "  banditti 
known  to  be  in  the  neighborhood."  And  what  provocation  had  General 
Taylor  for  blockading  Matamoras,  and  cutting  off  the  supplies  for  the  Mex 
ican  army  ?  He  tells  us  that  he  had  received  a  despatch  from  General  Am- 
pudia,  summoning  him  to  withdraw  his  force  within  twenty-four  hours, 
and  to  fall  back  beyond  the  Nueces.  Was  this  summons  an  act  of  hostili 
ty?  It  was  not  so  regarded  by  General  Taylor,  for  in  his  note  in  reply ,  he 
says  the  responsibility  will  rest  upon  those  "  who  rashly  commence  hostili 
ties."  So,  according  to  his  own  confession,  before  the  Mexicans  had  com 
menced  hostilities,  he  blockaded  their  town  and  cut  off  their  supplies.  Does 
not  this  make  us  the  aggressors?  Have  we  in  time  of  peace  a  right  to 
blockade  the  Mexican  ports,  and  so  cut  off  supplies  from  their  army  ?  This 
is  not  a  threat,  but  an  act  of  hostility.  We  were  not  only  the  aggressors  in 
invading  a  country  in  possession  of  Mexico,  but  we  were  guilty  of  the  first 
overt  act.  And  I  should  like  to  be  told,  even  if  the  Rio  Grande  w^re  the 
true  boundary,  whether  the  Mexicans  were  not  justified  in  crossing  the  river 
to  cut  off  General  Taylor's  supplies,  after  he  had  blockaded  the  port  and  cut 
off  theirs?  The  aggression  was  on  our  part.  We  commenced  hostilities. 

[Mr.  JONES,  of  Georgia.  1  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Massachu 
setts,  whether  he  has  any  authority  for  saying  that  the  Mexicans  crossed  the 
river  simply  to  cut  off  General  Taylor's  supplies.] 

I  will  not  higgle  with  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  about  terms.  I  sup 
pose  that  General  Arista  had  sent  his  troops  across  the  river  to  oppose  Gen 
eral  Taylor,  by  throwing  themselves  between  him  and  his  supplies.  I  re 
gard  Arista's  movement  as  a  hostile  one,  brought  on  by  the  hostile  move 
ments  of  our  own  troops.  Our  forces  had  blockaded  Matamoras,  and  cut 
off  the  supplies  from  the  Mexican  army;  and  the  Mexicans,  in  return,  at 
tempted  to  intercept  our  supplies.  Both  were  acts  of  hostility.  I  knowna 
difference  between  attacking  the  army  itself,  and  cutting  off'  their  provisions 
and  munitions  of  war.  It  is  as  much  an  act  of  hostility  to  cut  off  an 
army  by  famine  as  by  the  sword.  Or,  if  gentlemen  regard  nothing  as  war 
but  an  actual  collision  of  forces,  we  have  no  evidence  that  the  Mexicans 
made  the  first  attack.  General  Taylor  in  his  despatch  does  not  pretend  it. 

From  the  view  I  have  taken  of  this  whole  subject,  it  appears  to  me  that 
we  have  been  the  aggressors.  We  annexed  Texas  to  this  Union.  But  the 
Texas  we  annexed  was  limited  in  her  territory  to  the  Nueces,  or  that  im 
mediate  vicinity.  Though  she  had  made  several  attempts  to  extend  her 
territory  by  arms  to  the  Rio  Grande,  she  had  always  been  unsuccessful. 


11 

The  whole  country  east  of  the  Rio  Grande  to  the  Nueces,  or  certainly  to 
the  desert,  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Mexicans.  They  had  settlements 
in  the  territory  ;  they  had  military  posts  there,  and  custom-houses,  which 
we  have  always  acknowledged  as  belonging  to  Mexico,  by  paying  duties 
there  to. the  Mexican  government.  Though  Texas  had  laid  some  claim  to 
the  territory,  Mexico  was  in  possession,  and  we  had  always  acknowledged 
it.  And  yet  the  President  of  the  United  States,  without  authority  of 
law,  sends  our  army  to  dispossess  the  Mexicans  by  taking  possession  of 
the  territory,  and  planting  our  standard  on  the  banks  of  the  Rio  Grande 
— the  very  extreme  point  to  which  the  most  sanguine  ever  laid  claim. 
General  Taylor  had,  also,  by  the  direction  of  the  Executive,  erected  a 
battery  opposite  Matamoras,  with  his  guns  pointing  into  the  town,  as 
if  to  awe  them  into  submission.  This  can  be  regarded  in  no  other 
light  than  an  act  of  aggression.  So  impatient  was  the  Executive  to  dis 
possess  the  Mexicans,  and  take  possession  of  the,  whole  country  between 
the  Nueces  and  the  Rio  Grande,  that  as  early  as  June,  1£15,  before 
annexation  had  been  consummated,  Mr.  Bancroft,  the  acting  Secretary  of 
War,  in  his  instructions  to  General  Taylor,  informed  him  that  his  "  ulti 
mate  destination"  was  the  Rio  Grande.  This  is  followed  up  by  an. 
order  of  August  23d,  1845,  in  which  we  find  the  following  :  u  Should 
Mexico  assemble  a  large  body  of  troops  on  the  Rio  Grande,  and  cross  it 
with  a  considerable  force,  such  a  movement  must  be  regarded  as  an  invasion, 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  commencement  of  hostilities."  In  an  order 
of  August  30th,  1845,  the  Secretary  of  War  goes  further,  and  says  :  u  An 
attempt  to  cross  the  river  with  a  large  force,  will  be  considered  by  the  Pres 
ident  as  the  commencement  of  hostilities.  There  may  be  other  acts  on  the 
part  of  Mexico  which  would  put  an  end  to  the  relations  of  peace  between 
that  Republic  and  the  United  States.  In  case  of  war,  either  declared  or 
made  manifest  by  hostile  acts,  your  main  object  will  be  the  protection  of 
Texas;  but  the  pursuit  of  this  object  will  not  necessarily  confine  your  ac 
tion  within  the  territory  of  Texas.  Mexico  having  thus  commenced  hos 
tilities,  you  may,  in  your  discretion,  should  you  have  sufficient  force  and 
be  in  a  condition  to  do  so,  cross  the  Rio  Grande,  disperse  or  capture  the 
forces  assembling  to  invade  Texas ,  defeat  the  junction  of  troops  uniting 
for  that  purpose,  drive  them  from  their  positions  on  cither  side  of  that  river, 
and,  if  deemed  practicable  and  expedient,  take  and  hold  possession  of 
Matamoras  and  other  places  in  the  country.  I  scarcely  need  to  say  that 
enterprises  of  this  kind  are  only  to  be  ventured  on  under  circumstances  pre 
senting  a  fair  prospect  of  success." 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  to  me  that  no  man  can  read  these  orders,  and 
review  the  whole  course  of  the  President,  without  perceiving  that  the  Ex 
ecutive  was  seeking  an  occasion  against  Mexico — using  every  means  in  his 
power,  and  means  which  by  the  Constitution  he  did  not  possess,  to  bring 
on  a  war  with  that  Republic.  And  after  these  numerous  acts  of  aggression, 
the  President  has  the  effrontery  to  tell  us  in  his  late  message,  that  "  war 
exists,  and  notwithstanding  all  our  efforts  to  avoid  it,  and  exists  by  the  acts 
cf  Mexico  herself." 

Sir,  I  regard  this  declaration  as  utterly  untrue.  And  as  it  was  incorporated 
into  the  bill  and  preamble,  I  could  not  vote  for  it.  I  believed  the  preamble 
to  be  false,  and  was  satisfied  that  it  was  connected  with  the  bill  for  the  pur 
pose  of  shielding  the  President.  I  believe  that  this  recognition  of  existing- 


12 

war  was  connected  with  the  supplies  for  the  array,  for  the  purpose  of  com 
mitting  as  many  as  possible  to  this  base  war  of  conquest,  and  to  this  gross 
encroachment  upon  the  Constitution.  Regarding  the  preamble  as  false, 
and  the  war  inexpedient,  and  one  got  up  for  the  purpose  of  conquest,  I 
could  not,  as  a  faithful  representative  of  the  people,  give  it  my  support.  I 
believe  I  should  have  been  false  to  truth,  to  justice,  and  to  the  best  inter 
ests  of  my  country,  if  I  had  given  my  sanction  to  such  a  measure. 

The  gentleman  from  Illinois  (Mr.  DOUGLASS)  has  pronounced  everyone 
a  hypocrite,  a  traitor,  and  a  coward,  who  voted  against  the  bill,  and  who 
charged  the  Executive  as  the  aggressor  in  this  case.  But,  sir,  I  shall  not 
be  deterred  from  what  I  consider  to  be  my  duty  by  any  such  intimidation, 
I  come  not  here  to  bow  to  Executive  dictation,  or  to  register  the  edict  of 
James  K.  Polk,  or  any  other  President.  I  have  no  ambitious  ends  to 
answer — no  patronage  to  seek — no  high  political  aspirations  to  gratify;  and 
hence  shall  not  be  very  solicitous  of  courting  Executive  favor,  or  flattering 
the  morbid  sensibility  of  noisy  and  restless  demagogues.  But  although 
that  gentleman  may  brand  us  as  cowards,  I  will  assure  him  that  neither 
the  strength  of  his  voice,  nor  the  violence  of  his  gesticulations,  nor  the 
spasmodic  emotions  of  his  patriotism,  will  in  the  slightest  degree  alarm  me. 
The  gentleman  may 

"  Shake  his  ambrosial  locks,  and  give  the  nod," 

and  some  gentlemen  may,  perhaps,  tremble  in  his  presence;  but  I  shall 
remain  unawed.  Yes,  he  may 

"  Assume  the  god, 

Affect  to  nod, 

And  seem  to  shake  the  spheres;" 

but  he  will  not  shake  my  convictions  of  duty,  or  my  determination  to  obey 
them . 

The  gentleman  from  Ohio,  (Mr.  THURMAN,)  who  addressed  the  com 
mittee  yesterday,  read  numerous  extracts  from  the  federal  papers, published 
during  the  late  war  with  England.  He  has  produced  these  extracts  with 
an  air  of  triumph,  as  if  he  had  demolished  his  colleague  at  a  blow,  be 
cause  that  gentleman  had  applied  to  the  present  war  some  of  the  epithets 
which  had  been  applied  to  the  war  of  1812.  But  granting  all  that  the 
gentleman  has  said,  what  does  it  prove?  His  colleague  had  denounced 
the  present  war  and  its  authors;  and  he  meets  it  by  saying  that  the  war  of 
1812  was  denounced.  He  does  not  attempt  to  show  that  the  present  war 
is  just,  or  that  the  Executive  has  not  transcended  his  powers,  but  contents 
himself  with  a  low  attempt  to  create  a  popular  prejudice  against  his  col 
league.  If  he  felt  competent  to  meet  the  arguments  of  his  colleague, 
why  did  he  not  do  it?  Why  depend  upon  the  old  cry  of  Federalism  ?  I 
do  not  know  the  source  whence  the  gentleman  obtained  his  "  elegant  ex 
tracts,"  but  it  is  suggested  by  gentlemen  around  me,  that  he  might  have 
obtained  them  from  his  Democratic  friend  now  at  the  head  of  one  of  the 
departments,  who  was  formerly  so  zealous  a  Federalist,  that  he  is  said  to 
have  remarked,  that  if  he  thought  he  had  one  drop  of  Democratic  blood  ia 
his  veins,  he  would  apply  the  lancet  and  let  it  out. 

While  the  gentleman  was  denouncing  the  '-immortal  fourteen,"  and 
representing  them  as  enemies  of  their  country;  he  ought  to  have  recollected 


13 

that  two  of  them  from  his  own  State  had  proved  their  courage  and  their 
patriotism  by  fighting  the  battles  of  their  country;  and  some  of  the  rest  of 
that  number  have  seen  more  of  the  tented  field,  I  presume,  than  that  gen 
tleman  himself. 

As  to  his  attack  upon  the  Federal  party,  in  1812, 1  have  nothing  to  say. 
They  need  no  defence  from  me.  They  numbered  in  their  ranks  some  of 
the  wisest  statesmen  and  firmest  patriots  of  the  country.  If  they  erred,  I 
am  not  responsible  for  their  errors,  having  never  belonged  to  that  party. 
Though  young  at  that  period,  my  feelings  were  enlisted  on  the  other  side  in 
politics. 

[Mr.  SIMS,  of  South  Carolina,  made  some  inquiry  about  the  conduct  of 
the  Federalists  at  that  period.] 

1  should  be  pleased  to  hear  the  gentleman,  but  my  time  will  not  per 
mit.  It  is  rare  that  we,  upon  this  side  of  the  house,  can  obtain  the  floor; 
and  I  have  no  time  to  be  catechised  by  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side;  they 
will  have  their  turn  hereafter.  But  if  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina 
is  troubled  about  threats  of  disunion,!  will  ask  him  what  he  thinks  of  more 
modern  threats  of  nullification  and  disunion  in  another  quarter.  He  may 
perhaps  understand  that  better. 

But  we  are  charged  with  withholding  succor  from  our  gallant  little  army  in 
the  hour  of  its  peril — with  being  indifferent  to  its  present  alarming  condi 
tion.  This  charge,  sir,  is  founded  upon  an  entire  •misrepresentation  of  the 
facts  in  the  case.  Does  any  person  believe  that  any  of  the  troops,  raised  by 
virtue  of  our  act  of  war,  can  reach  the  Rio  Grande  before  the  fate  of  our 
army  will  be  decided  for  good  or  for  evil  ?  The  collision  between  our 
forces  and  those  of  Mexico  took  place  on  the  24th  of  April,  and  the  subject 
was  brought  before  us  on  the  llth  of  May,  seventeen  days  after  the  event. 
We  could  not  expect  that  the  subject  would  be  disposed  of  here  under  two 
or  three  days,  and  the  intelligence  of  our  action  could  not  reach  General 
Taylor  before  the  last  of  May,  some  thirty-five  days  after  the  first  collision. 
It  is  also  manifest  that  volunteers  could  not  be  raised,  organized,  and  sent  to 
the  scene  of  action  before  the  middle  of  June.  Some  six  or  eight  weeks 
must  elapse  before  the  troops,  raised  by  our  act,  could  reach  General  Tay 
lor's  camp.  How,  then,  can  it  be  pretended  that  our  action  could  have  any 
reference  to  the  immediate  condition  of  our  army?  From  the  facts ,  submit 
ted  by  General  Taylor,  it  appears  to  be  certain  that  the  fate  of  his  army 
must  be  decided  for  weal  or  for  woe  within  a  short  time.  The  Command 
ing  General  also  informs  us  that  he  had,  in  virtue  of  authority  reposed  in 
him,  called  upon  the  States  of  Texas  and  Louisiana  for  5,000  men  ;  and 
he  had  authority  to  call  upon  several  other  States.  The  call  for  these 
troops  was  made  on  the  26th  of  April,  and  would  reach  the  authorities  of 
those  States  ten  or  twelve  days  before  the  intelligence  of  the  collision 
reached  us.  These  troops  would  be  sent  irrespective  of  any  action  by  this 
body,  and  it  is  upon  them  and  others,  which  he  was  authorized  to  call  for, 
that  General  Taylor  must  depend.  It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  fate 
of  oiir  army  depended  upon  any  action  of  ours.  Our  action  had  reference, 
not  to  the  immediate  fate  of  the  army,  but  to  the  future  operation  of  that 
army.  It  was  a  question  not  of  immediate  succor  to  our  own  troops,  but 
of  the  conquest  of  Mexico.  This  was  in  fact  the  question  which  the  ma- 
I  jority  pressed  upon  the  House;  and  if  our  army  should  have  suffered  by 
the  defeat  of  that  bill,  the  responsibility  would  have  rested  upon  those  who_, 


14 

to  gain  party  ends,  were  pleased  to  connect  the  question  of  supplies  with 
gross  falsehoods,  and  a  war  of  conquest  and  aggrandizement. 

But  we  are  told,  by  gentlemen  on  this  floor,  that  it  is  treason  to  oppose  the 
Government  in  time  of  war.  Sir,  I  have  no  sympathy  with  that  dastard 
ly  sentiment.  What !  has  it  come  to  this,  that  a  weak  or  wicked  Execu 
tive  may  usurp  power,  and  involve  the  nation  in  an  unjust  war,  and  an 
unscrupulous  majority  may  press  through  the  House,  without  debate,  a  bill 
sanctioning  that  iniquitous  procedure,  and  then  all  mouths  must  be  closed 
on  the  subject?  Is  this  the  liberty  and  the  only  liberty  granted  to  the 
representatives  of  a  free  people  ?  Is  it  treason  to  point  out  the  faults  of  a 
corrupt  Administration?  Are  we  to  submit  in  all  things  to  the  will  of  the 
President?  If  so,  we  have  nothing  left  of  liberty  but  the  name.  We  are 
already  under  a  despotism.  Such  doctrines  may  answer  for  corrupt  syco 
phants,  who  bow  to  the  Executive  for  place,  but  they  are  unworthy  of  free 
men.  I  protest  against  all  such  corrupt  and  corrupting  sentiments.  Trea 
son  to  speak  against  the  measures  of  the  Administration,  because  we  are  at 
war  !  Sir,  I  have  from  my  earliest  boyhood  had  a  profound  veneration  for 
the  Earl  of  Chatham,  arising  from  the  manly  course  he  pursued  in  the 
English  Parliament  in  pleading  the  cause  of  America.  He  spake  freely  of 
the  impolicy  and  the  injustice  of  the  mother  country  towards  the  Colonies. 
He  commenced  his  patriotic  course  before  the  war  began,  but  he  did  not 
cease  with  the  breaking  out  of  hostilities.  He  plead  for  America;  he  ex 
posed  the  Administration;  he  denounced  their  measures  as  infamous,  while 
the  war  was  in  progress.  When  opposing  the  administration,  he  employed 
language  like  this  :  c<  Sir,  /  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted;  three  mil 
lions  of  people  so  dead  to  all  feelings  of  liberty,  as  voluntarily  to  submit  to 
be  slaves,  would  be  fit  instruments  to  make  slaves  of  all  the  rest."  "  The 
Americans  have  been  wonged;  they  have  been  driven  to  madness  by  in 
justice"  "  If  I  were  an  American,  as  lam  an  Englishman,  while  a 
foreign  troop  was  landed  in  my  country,!  never  would  lay  down  my  arms 
— NEVER,  NEVER,  NEVER!  I  solemnly  call  upon  your  lordships,  and 
upon  every  order  of  men  in  the  state,  to  stamp  upon  this  infamous  proce 
dure  the  indelible  stigma  of  public  abhorrence."  Such  was  the  language 
of  the  friends  of  liberty  on  the  floor  of  Parliament;  and  that  body,  even 
under  that  tyrannic  administration ,  had  not  the  hardihood  to  attempt  to 
suppress  it.  The  last  act  of  his  life  was  an  effort  in  behalf  of  the  Co 
lonies.  The  opposition  in  Parliament  have  always  spoken  with  freedom 
in  peace  and  in  war.  This  is  English  liberty.  Pitt,  and  Barre,  and 
Burke,  and  all  the  leaders  of  the  opposition,  even  at  that  day,  were  too  en 
lightened,  had  too  ardent  a  love  of  liberty,  to  subscribe  to  the  degrading  and 
cowardly  sentiment  which  we  hear  proclaimed  upon  this  floor,  in  the  hall 
of  an  American  Congress. 

I  have  no  boasts  to  make  of  my  devotion  to  my  country.  I  am  a  citi 
zen  of  this  country.  This  is  the  land  of  my  birth.  My  lot  is  cast  in  the 
United  States,  and  my  fortune  is  connected  with  hers.  When  she  is  right, 
I  will  sustain  her;  and  if  I  believe  her  to  be  in  the  wrong,  I  will  not  give 
her  up,  but  will  point  out  her  errors,  and  do  all  in  my  power  to  bring  her 
into  the  right;  so  that,  if  war  must  come,  and  our  young  men  must  be 
offered  on  the  altar  of  our  country,  we  may  safely  commend  them  to  the 
God  of  battles — to  that  Being  who  rules  in  the  armies  of  heaven  and  among 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.  I  desire  the  prosperity  of  my  country,  and 


15 

nothing  but  my  devotion  to  her  interest,  and  to  the  higher  principles  of 
moral  rectitude,  induced  me  to  separate  from  those  with  whom  I  have 
generally  acted.  I  could  not  consent  to  involve  my  country  in  a  war  which 
I  believe  to  be  unnecessary  and  unjust — a  war  of  conquest — brought  about 
by  ambitious  men  to  answer  personal  and  party  purposes. 

Before  I  conclude  my  remarks,  I  must  notice  another  subject  closely  con 
nected  with  this,  and  one  out  of  which  our  present  difficulties  have  grown. 
Gentlemen  with  whom  I  have  acted  on  this  floor  will  bear  me  witness,  that 
I  have  not  been  in  the  habit  of  going  out  of  my  way  to  attack  the  institu 
tions  of  the  South .  Though  I  have  always  regarded  slavery  as  an  evil — 
a  political  and  moral  wrong — having  no  power  over  it  in  the  States,  I  have 
been  disposed  to  leave  it  with  those  who  have  it  in  their  keeping  to  manage, 
according  to  their  own  sense  of  propriety.  But,  when  gentlemen  throw 
this  subject  in  my  path — when  they  bring  it  up  here  for  action,  and  ask  me 
to  give  a  vote  upon  it,  I  will  speak  and  act  freely — I  will  not  give  it  my 
countenance — it  shall  not  be  extended  by  me.  This  war  is  one^of  the  first 
fruits  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  And  that  measure  was  got  up  and  con 
summated  to  extend  and  perpetuate  slavery.  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  the  corres 
pondence  submitted  with  the  treaty,  avowed  this  to  be  the  primary  object 
of  annexation.  I  opposed  it  then,  and  I  voted  against  the  war  because  its 
object  is  to  extend,  not  the  "area  of  freedom,"  but  the  area  of  bondage. 
And  I  wish  to  commend  this  subject  specially  to  the  gentleman  from  Illi 
nois,  whose  bosom  glows  with  such  ardent  patriotism,  that  he  is  willing  to 
spill  rivers  of  blood  in  this  war  with  Mexico.  That  gentleman  was  bora 
in  a  State  where  the  blight  of  slavery  was  never  known,  and  his  residence 
is  now  in  a  free  State.  All  his  associations,  we  may  suppose,  have  been  in 
favor  of  freedom ,  and  yet  he  is  willing  to  aid  in  riveting  fellers  upon  others — 
now  as  free  as  himself.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  though  he  professes  an  ardent 
love  of  liberty,  and  would  have  us  believe  that  his  bosom  was  warmed  by 
the  very  fires  of  patriotism,  he  is  desirous  of  spreading  the  curse  of  slavery 
over  a  large  section  of  country  where  it  is  now  unknown .  He  is  so  devoted 
to  his  country,  and  so  in  love  with  her  institutions,  that  he  is  willing-  to 
sustain,  with  blood  and  treasure,  an  institution  at  war  with  the  first  princi 
ples  of  a  republican  government — liberty  and  equality.  He  denounces 
Mexico  as  an  uncivilized  and  barbarous  power,  and  still  he  aspires  to  be  a 
leader  in  a  policy  designed  to  extend  and  perpetuate  slavery,  and  to  plant 
on  the  soil  of  Mexico  an  institution  which  she,  barbaious  as  she  is,  and 
corrupt  as  the  gentleman  would  represent  her  to  be,  would  not  permit  to 
pollute  her  soil.  This  is  the  position  of  the  gentleman  who  denounces  all 
as  traitors  who  will  not  bow  to  the  dictation  of  the  majority  on  this  floor. 

He  may  occupy  that  position,  but  I  confess  that  I  do  not  covet  it.  I 
agree  with  the  late  Whig  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  Mr.  Clay,  "that  all 
wars  are  to  be  regarded  as  great  calamities,  to  be  avoided  if  possible;  and 
that  honorable  peace  is  the  wisest  and  truest  policy  for  this  country."  I 
agree  with  him,  also,  that  in  a  war  for  conquest,  and  especially  in  a  war  to 
extend  and  perpetuate  slavery,  we  should  stand  disgraced  in  the  eyes  of  the 
civilized  world.  In  such  a  war,  I  fear  that  victory  itself  would  prove  a 
defeat,  and  that  a  triumph  over  our  enemies  in  foreign  countries,  would 
eventuate  in  the  destruction  of  our  free  institutions  at  home.  War  under 
any  circumstance  is  a  great  calamity.  But  when  it  is  waged  with 
out  an  adequate  cause— when  it  is  carried  on  to  gratify  an  inordinate  am- 


16 

-bition,  or  an  unholy  spirit  of  conquest,  it  is  more  than  a'calamity — it  is  a 
crime  of  the  deepest  dye.  And  the  administration  which  shall  use  the 
power  reposed  in  it  for  good,  for  such  wicked  purposes,  merits  and  justly 
merits  public  execration.  Let  those  in  power  look  well  to  it  that  this  ex 
ecration  does  not  fall  upon  their  heads.  They  may  think  it  a  light  thing, 
but  let  them  remember  that  blood  shed  for  unrighteous  purposes  will  cry 
from  the  ground  to  him  "  who  bringeth  the  princes  to  nothing,  and  who 
taketh  up  the  isles  as  a  very  little  thing." 


